Rough Depth Chart (with position analyses)

[CPcavedweller]

On 3/14/2025 at 4:28 PM, rebelrouser said:

Tyler Warren is TJ Hockenson 2.0.  The BPA is more likely going to be Jeanty.

Tyler Warren may look like Hockenson, but he is quite a bit more polished and fluid of an athlete. 

[Camp Fodder]

On 3/14/2025 at 3:28 PM, rebelrouser said:

Tyler Warren is TJ Hockenson 2.0.  The BPA is more likely going to be Jeanty.

Then pick up the phone and call Jerry jones. Swap firsts and pickup the cowboys  2nd rounder 

[jayboogieman]

On 3/14/2025 at 11:36 AM, MHS831 said:

You bring up a good point.  Does BPA include position value?  For example, if you have a need at TE and Edge, and TE and Edge are rated 1 and 2 on your board when you pick.  You know edges are more rare than TEs; you can get a TE later who is 80% the player in round 1 is, but an Edge later is 40% of the player in round 1 was---so when you are selecting BPA, do you do it as an isolated incident without regarding the players later?  If we follow a pure BPA strategy, we could be drafting Jeanty, RB.  If BPA was always applied by all teams, it is statistically probable that a team would draft 4 or 5 players at the same position.  So there has to be some "big picture" approach.  In fact, if a team takes an edge, for example, they remove all other Edges from their boards--that is needs-based shopping.  It is an interesting point--where is the line between BPA and need and position availability?  If you look at the cap, you would take an Edge over a TE on the board because edges are more expensive--you save more money.  I have never been convinced that BPA is the golden rule--except when all other variables are equal.  Great to hear other takes.

Honestly BPA shouldn't include positional value at all. It is best player available after all, not best player available at position X. That said, very few teams in any sport go pure BPA because they have needs and wants. Plus, some do stick to the dogmatic position value BS.

[MHS831]

UPDATED GRAPHICS